Archives for category: Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

One of the Best Articles You Will Ever Read About Standardized Testing

By dianeravitch
April 11, 2017 //
19

When I read this post by Steven Singer, I was so excited that I thought about devoting an entire day to it. Like posting it and posting nothing else for the entire day. Or posting this piece over and over all day to make sure you read it. It is that important.

Steven’s post explains two different phenomena. First, why is standardized testing so ubiquitous? What does it have a death grip on public education?

Second, in the late 1990s, when I was often in D.C., I noticed that the big testing companies had ever-present lobbyists to represent their interests. Why? Wasn’t the adoption of tests a state and local matter? NCLB changed all that, Race to the Top made testing even more consequential, and the new ESSA keeps up the mandate to test every child every year from grades 3-8. No other country does this? Why do we?

He begins like this:


“It’s easy to do business when the customer is forced to buy.

“But is it fair, is it just, or does it create a situation where people are coerced into purchases they wouldn’t make if they had a say in the matter?

“For example, school children as young as 8-years-old are forced to take a battery of standardized tests in public schools. Would educators prescribe such assessments if it were up to them? Would parents demand children be treated this way if they were consulted? Or is this just a corporate scam perpetrated by our government for the sole benefit of a particular industry that funnels a portion of the profits to our lawmakers as political donations?

“Let’s look at it economically.

“Say you sold widgets – you know, those hypothetical doodads we use whenever we want to talk about selling something without importing the emotional baggage of a particular product.

“You sell widgets. The best widgets. Grade A, primo, first class widgets.

“Your goal in life is to sell the most widgets possible and thus generate the highest profit.

“Unfortunately, the demand for widgets is fixed. Whatever they are, people only want so many of them. But if you could increase the demand and thus expand the market, you would likewise boost your profits and better meet your goals.

“There are many ways you could do this. You could advertise and try to convince consumers that they need more widgets. You could encourage doctors and world health organizations to prescribe widgets as part of a healthy lifestyle. Or you could convince the government to mandate the market.

“That’s right – force people to buy your products.

“That doesn’t sound very American does it?

“In a democratic society, we generally don’t want the government telling us what to purchase. Recall the hysteria around the Obamacare individual mandate requiring people who could afford to buy healthcare coverage to do so or else face a financial tax penalty. In this case, one might argue that it was justified because everyone wants healthcare. No one wants to let themselves die from a preventable disease or allow free riders to bump up the cost for everyone else.

“However, it’s still a captive market though perhaps an innocuous one. Most are far more pernicious.

“According to dictionary.com, a captive market is “a group of consumers who are obliged… to buy a particular product, thus giving the supplier a monopoly” or oligopoly. This could be because of lack of competition, shortages, or other factors.

“In the case of government mandating consumers to buy a particular product, it’s perhaps the strongest case of a captive market. Consumers have no choice but to comply and thus have little to no protection from abuse. They are at the mercy of the supplier.

“It’s a terrible position to be in for consumers, but a powerful one for businesspeople. And it’s exactly the situation for public schools and the standardized testing industry.

“Let’s break it down.

“These huge corporations don’t sell widgets, they sell tests. In fact, they sell more than just that, but let’s focus right now on just that – the multiple choice, fill-in-the-bubble assessments.

“Why do our public schools give these tests? Because peer-reviewed research shows they fairly and accurately demonstrate student learning? Because they’ve been proven by independent observers to be an invaluable part of the learning process and help students continue to learn new things?

“No and no.

“The reason public schools give these tests is because the government forces them. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires that all students in grades 3-8 and once in high school take certain approved standardized assessments. Parents are allowed to refuse the tests for their children, but otherwise they have to take them.”

A captive audience of 50.4 million students. Read the full analysis as I am skipping the meaty part.

He concludes with these questions:

If an industry gets big enough and makes enough donations to enough lawmakers, they get the legislation they want. In many cases, the corporations write the legislation and then tell lawmakers to pass it. And this is true for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Standardized testing and Common Core are one pernicious example of our new captive market capitalism collapsing into plutocracy.

Our tax dollars are given away to big business and our voices are silenced.

Forget selling widgets. Our children have BECOME widgets, hostage consumers, and access to them is being bought and sold.

We are all slaves to this new runaway capitalism that has freed itself from the burden of self-rule.

How long will we continue to put up with it?

How long will we continue to be hostages to these captive markets?

Categories Common Core, Education Industry, Testing

A Visit to the Offices of SBAC

By dianeravitch
April 10, 2017 //
8

From California parent, Joan Davidson, about her visit with teacher Larry Lawrence to the offices of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, which received $180 million in federal funding when Arne Duncan was Secretary of Education, to write tests for the Common Core standards. SBAC was supposed to have 25 states, but it now has only 15. The other consortium is PARCC, which has shrunk from 25 states to only 6 states plus DC

Larry Lawrence and I visited the SBAC office last week before they move which is scheduled to happened by end of June.

It is most concerning. Please read the notes below and attached.

It was concerning that most people are working from remote locations, undisclosed locations, and that a young woman is mostly alone in a 3000 sq. ft. office that is mostly unfurnished and dark.

The SBAC organization is using public funds but refuses to make public their agendas, minutes, meeting locations, budgetary
decisions, etc.

Since the tests are secret as well, someone in one of the 15 states who contract with SBAC needs to explain to the public
how they are using public funds without any public information disclosable to the public.

I have not researched PARCC.

Is PARCC as secretive as SBAC?

Thanks
Joan Davidson

Larry Lawrence and I drove to the UCLA campus today to visit the SBAC office located at the Peter Uberroth building on Le Conte Ave in Westwood.

We were unsure if we would also visit the Graduate Education building office #300 as well known as the GSEIS Building – Graduate School of Education and Information Sciences.

We arrived at approximately 12pm to the building. SBAC office #1400 posted the SBAC name and room #on a paper sign and showed this sign telling visitors to use the door around the corner. The office could not be entered without punching a code.

We went around the corner to that office number that only posted the sign for the CRESST office. #1400 and #1355.

I rang the bell. The code system for entry was also in place.

A woman named Amulet opened the door. I asked if Paisha Allmendinger was in the office. She asked who we were and I said my name is Joan.

Paisha came to the door. It was dark behind Paisha with a very long hallway. She asked what we wanted. I explained that we were educators and we wanted some information regarding SBAC. Asked if she could spare a few minutes.

She invited us into the offices.

I was struck by the vast space approx. 3000 sq. ft. The only occupants that we saw were the woman Amulet and Paisha.

We followed Paisha to her office. She is listed as the director of finances for SBAC. She is approx. 30 years old.

Larry had printed up a SBAC employee list from online and there were 28 people on the list. I asked Paisha were they were. She explained that only 3 people were here in this office while 35 people worked as a virtual office across the Nation.

I said I heard that SBAC was moving. She said yes, there is an RFP currently due on April 6, 2017. This RFP is only open to public agencies that participate in the CA retirement system.

I asked why SBAC was bumped out of UCLA. She said that the contract with the grad school was not renewed.

She said that possibly the RFP would be responded to by Cal State Univ., a UC campus or 1 bidder is a County Office of Education.

The SBAC is concerned about retirement and other employee benefits so they are attempting to remain attached to another public institution associated with the CA benefits program.

I asked what happened to state of Washington as fiscal agent. Paisha said when UCLA signed the MOU with SBAC UCLA became the fiscal agent.

SBAC is aligned to the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Sciences

SBAC employees want to maintain the service credits of employment with a CA public agency.
I asked about Administrators and Paisha said there are 6-10 people acting as Administrators that work at home and come into the office 2 days a week.

She asked what our interest is in this? Larry answered that as a math teacher, he’s interested in the new tests. She pointed out the new test item site online.

The SBAC is matching up questions to the state standards. (CC standards I suppose)
People wanted SBAC to have actual sample questions.

She spoke about accommodations and accessibility and translations for test takers.

I asked if Agendas for meetings were available to public. No.

What about who are the Executive Board of Directors. It’s online according to her.

She stated that the CRESST center is their partner and now is consolidated at the Grad School of Ed offices.

CRESST provides psychometric work to SBAC and validity studies and research.

I asked where this can be found? On CRESST website she said.

We asked who was located across campus in the SBAC office next to CRESST?

No one, it’s just acting like a mailbox for their purposes.

We asked about the status of the SBAC employees who were listed as occupying office space in the GSEIS building across the campus.

Paisha told us that all these 12 people worked at remote locations and none of them were physically located on the UCLA campus. The address listed for them on the SBAC website (GSEIS Building 300) served as a post office box type function. The GSEIS Building is primarily the location of the CRESST staff while the main location of the Graduate School of Education and Information Sciences is Moore Hall, located in the central area of the UCLA campus.

My observations and unanswered questions:

The 3000 sq. ft. + office is empty except for Allmendinger’s office and a few partitioned stations. It was mostly dark and eerie.

Paisha’s office had 3 top to bottom bookshelves–all empty.

The only other person that was visible was Amulet who answered the door.

Paisha is titled the Financial Director that would put in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars. She does not seem qualified with prior experience to oversee this agency.

Who is really directing this center?

Strangers such as Larry and I have most likely never visited the SBAC offices.

It is a bizarre atmosphere and should have been bustling.

Where are all of the other 35 people located and who are they?

What are they paid?

What are there qualifications?

What do they do?

Paisha stated there are 6-10 administrators who work with SBAC and come into the office 2 days a week. It was not clarified whether it is 6, or 10.

Categories Common Core, Education Industry, Testing

Arthur Goldstein: I Will Be Rated as a Teacher Based on a Test My Students Don’t Take

By dianeravitch
April 8, 2017 //
12

Arthur Goldstein has been teaching for more than 30 years in the New York City public schools.

He has a terrific blog about teaching in New York City.

Here, he describes how he will be rated as a teacher by an insane system.

He begins here:

NY City’s brilliant and infallible Engage system has mandated that I be rated on a test the overwhelming majority of my students will not be taking. As far as I can determine, this is a side effect of the rather awful regulation called CR Part 154. You see, I’m an ESL teacher, but teaching ESL isn’t real teaching. That’s because under Part 154 anything not regarded as “core content” is utterly without value. After all, if it can’t be measured with a standardized test, what proof is there that it even exists?

And yet, in fact, there is a standardized test to measure ESL progress. Sure it’s a stinking piece of garbage, but it exists. This test is called the NYSESLAT. It used to test language acquisition, albeit poorly, but it’s been redesigned to measure just how Common Corey our students are. For the last few years I’ve lost weeks of instruction so I could sit in the auditorium and ask newcomers endless questions about Hammurabi’s Code. I’m not sure what effect this had on non-English speaking students, but I know more about Hammurabi’s code than I ever have.

You may have read me lamenting the fact that I’d be measured on such a poor test once or twice. Last year, in fact, I must have done OK with it since I got an effective rating. I have no idea how exactly I did this. I don’t teach to that test nor do I go out of my way to learn what’s on it. With the oral part is so outlandish and invalid it doesn’t seem worth my while to study the written part. So why the hell aren’t I rated on this test?

It’s complicated, and I can only guess. But Part 154 largely couples ESL with another subject area. In my school, that area is English. It’s kind of a natural pairing, until you realize the high likelihood of ELL newcomers sitting around trying to read To Kill a Mockingbird when they can’t yet tell you what their names are. After all, when English teachers take the magical 12 credits that render them dual-licensed, how can we be sure part of that training entails instruction to NOT give ELLs materials they CANNOT READ? Maybe the focus is on making stuff more Common Corey. Who knows?

Categories New York City, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

Van Schoales: Colorado’s Teacher Evaluation Mess

By dianeravitch
April 7, 2017 //
18

Van Schoales is part of the corporate reformer group that has controlled public education in Colorado for most of the past decade. When I visited Denver in 2010 to talk about my recently published book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education,” Van was running Education Reform Now on behalf of Democrats for Education Reform, the hedge-fund managers organization that lobbies for charters and high-stakes testing. I recall what a very nice guy he was and how generous he was in introducing me, even though we disagreed.

At the very time I arrived in Denver, the state legislature was nearing a vote on a teacher and principal evaluation plan devised by a young state senator named Michael Johnston, whose background was in Teach for America and New Leaders for New Schools. Several members of the legislature, who were former teachers, showed up for my lecture in Boulder and spoke to me afterwards about their concerns about this fast-moving bill. Johnston’s legislation, known as Senate Bill 10-191, promised to evaluate teachers and principals based on the test scores of their students. Fifty percent of their evaluation would be tied to test scores. I was scheduled to debate Johnston on the day of the vote, but he did not enter the room until the minute I finished speaking, so he never heard my side of the debate. Johnston, however, was flushed with excitement about his legislation. He said that if every educator was evaluated by test scores, then Colorado would have “great schools, great principals, and great teachers.” I tried my best to dissuade him and the audience of their obsession with the value of standardized testing, but it was too late. The legislature passed 10-191, and Johnston was considered a rising star.

Except, as Van Schoales now admits in this article in Education Week, the corporate reformers were wrong. SB 10-191 did not work out as planned, even though the framers relied on the very best Ivy League prognosticators.

He writes:

Back in May 2010, hundreds of the nation’s education foundation, policy, and practice elites were gathered for the NewSchools Venture Fund meeting in Washington to celebrate and learn from the most recent education reform policy victories in my home state of Colorado and across the country.

The opening speeches highlighted the recent passage of Colorado Senate Bill 10-191—a dramatic law which required that 50 percent of a teacher evaluation be based upon student academic growth. This offered a bold new vision for how teachers would be evaluated and whether they would gain or lose tenure based on the merits of their impact on student achievement.
Colorado would be one of several “ground zeros” for reforming teacher evaluation in the country. Many, including myself, thought these new state policies would allow our best teachers to shine. They would finally have useful feedback, be differentiated on an objective scale of effectiveness, and lose tenure if they weren’t performing. Teachers would be treated like other professionals and less like interchangeable widgets.

Colorado’s law and similar ones in other states appeared to be sound, research-backed policy formulated by education reform’s own “whiz kids.” We could point to Ivy League research that made a clear case for dramatic changes to the current system. There were large federal incentives, in addition to private philanthropy fueled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, encouraging such changes. And to pass these teacher-evaluation laws, we built a coalition of reform-minded Democrats and Republicans that also included the American Federation of Teachers. Reformers were confident we had a clear mandate.

And yet. Implementation did not live up to the promises.

Ah, implementation! The Soviet experiment might have worked had it been implemented the right way. When allegedly great ideas don’t work out in reality, then something is wrong with the idea. For one thing, it never had the support of educators, who were expected to make Michael Johnston’s big idea work. It didn’t work.

What went wrong? Almost everything.

Most teachers don’t teach tested subjects. The majority of teachers teach in states’ untested subject areas. This meant processes for measuring student growth outside of literacy or math were often thoughtlessly slapped together to meet the new evaluation law. For example, some elementary school art-teacher evaluations were linked to student performance on multiple-choice district art tests, while Spanish-teacher evaluations were tied to how the school did on the state’s math and literacy tests. Even for those who teach the grades and subjects with state tests, some debate remains on how much growth should be weighted for high-stakes decisions on teacher ratings.

Few educators “embraced” the new evaluation system. They complied, but they never believed.

Teacher evaluators were giving teachers higher scores than they allegedly deserved. This, of course, was a problem with the district and school culture, not the model, which was supposedly flawless.

Last, every one of the state’s charter schools waived themselves out of the teacher evaluation system.

Van Schoales doesn’t mention that test-based accountability has been criticized by leading scholarly organizations, like the American Statistical Association and the American Education Research Association.

Value-added measurement, or VAM, has fallen into disrepute for two reasons. First, it has not produced positive results anywhere. There is a solid body of research that has shown that it doesn’t work and will never work, because students are not randomly assigned, because home influences outweigh teacher influences on student test scores, and because most teachers do not teach the tested subjects.

Colorado had the perfect teacher evaluation plan, in theory, perfect enough to excite the corporate reformers, Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, et al. Except it didn’t work. I salute Van Schoales for admitting that the experiment failed.

Unfortunately it is still the law in Colorado. Educators are still evaluated by flawed and invalid measures. Seven years after passage of SB 10-191, Colorado does not have “great schools, great principals, great teachers.” Actually, it does have great schools, great principals, and great teachers in affluent districts, as it did in 2010. It even has great educators and schools in urban districts, but only if they are not measured by their students’ test scores. Don’t blame the victims of this effort to turn educators into widgets. The best evaluation of professionals is done by human judgment, taking multiple factors into account, not by standardized test scores.

Due to term limits, Michael Johnston is no longer in the State Senate. In January, he announced that he is running for Governor of Colorado. On his wikipedia page, he still boasts about SB 10-191. He owes an apology to the thousands of dedicated educators who were subjected to his invalid teacher evaluation plan, many of whom were unjustly terminated and lost their careers.

Categories Accountability, Colorado, Education Industry, Teacher Evaluations, Testing, VAM (value-added modeling)

New York: 51% of Students on Long Island Opt Out of State Tests

By dianeravitch
April 4, 2017 //
9

The full state count of opt outs has not been released but Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, surveyed the 124 school districts in Nassau and Suffolk counties and concluded that 51.2% of the eligible students did not take the state tests this past week. The story is behind a paywall.

“Last week, the number of students on Long Island in grades three through eight who refused to take the state’s English Language Arts exam topped 97,000, according to a Newsday survey that brought responses from 116 of the 124 school districts in Nassau and Suffolk counties. The number represented 51.2 percent of children eligible for testing — the second consecutive year the boycott has topped 50 percent.

“Some upstate school systems also reported high rates of ELA test refusals, while others have said the numbers were down somewhat. Elia told Newsday on Monday that the department would release official data on opt-out rates after state math tests are completed next month.

“Representatives of the New York State Alliance for Public Education focused much of their ire Monday on Elia’s decision last year to allow students in grades three through eight as much time as they wanted to complete the ELA and math exams.

“The commissioner contended that untimed tests were less stressful than those completed under deadlines. Alliance leaders responded that allowing students to spend entire school days filling in test answers actually heightened stress, and they demanded data on how many pupils engaged in such practices.

“Jeanette Deutermann of North Bellmore, a founder of the coalition and the group Long Island Opt Out, said in the statement issued Monday that the commissioner “has shown utter disregard for the well-being of children and opened the floodgates for abusive testing practices with little to no accountability.”

This will be the third year that large numbers of students–about 20% statewide–have refused the tests. Although the federal ESSA law requires 95% participation in every school, there appear to be zero schools in the state that met that mark.

A corporate reform group called High Achievement New York ran an expensive ad campaign to entice students to take the tests, ignoring the fact that the tests do not create “high achievement.” HANY’s executive director lives in New Jersey.

If everyone opted out, the legislature and even the Congress would have to back off their obsession with testing. Testing is not teaching. Children need more instruction, less testing.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, New York, Testing

Jeannie Kaplan: The Phony Narrative about “Success” in Denver

By dianeravitch
April 4, 2017 //
16

Jeannie Kaplan was an elected school board member in Denver for two terms. She has watched the complete takeover of the corporate reform movement with a sense of shock, dismay, alarm. Vast sums of money are expended at each local school board election to keep the privatizers in control.

For the moment, Denver is the darling of the corporate reformers. It has choice. Charter schools. Teach for America. High-stakes testing. Common Core standards. A non-union workforce in new schools. Alternative teachers and alternative leaders. It has everything that reformers want.

Except results.

Study after study hails the Denver reforms.

But by every measure, Denver students are not getting a better education. Segregation is growing. The curriculum is narrowing.

Reform is succeeding but the students are not.

Churn, churn, churn=stagnation.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reform, Denver, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, Testing

Beware the SAT and ACT: They Sell Confidential Student Data

By dianeravitch
April 3, 2017 //
8

PSAT/SAT day is Wednesday April 5 this week in NY schools and many other public schools in states around the country. These exams are now required in at least 9 states, but are given in many more states and districts, including NYC.

The College Board is unethically if not illegally amassing a huge amount of personal student information through the administration of these exams and selling it for a profit (though they call it “licensing” the names) at 42 cents per student. They are providing the information to a range of undisclosed institutions and companies, including reportedly the Department of Defense to help them recruit for the military.

If your child or your students are taking one of these tests, tell them to enter only the minimal info: name, address, gender and date of birth.

Read this post by privacy advocate Cheri Kiesecker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/03/30/how-the-sat-and-psat-collect-personal-data-on-students-and-what-the-college-board-does-with-it/?utm_term=.22c26edc837c

Leonie Haimson responded to the CB claims in the above:

https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-on-college-boards-evasions-and.html

Categories Privacy, Privacy and Privacy Rights, Testing

When PBS Sold Airtime to Bill Gates to Promote the Common Core

By dianeravitch
April 2, 2017 //
64

After I posted the story about the forthcoming PBS Series called School Inc., which promotes privatization, reflecting the views of the privatization movement, I shared the story with investigative journalist David Sirota. He recalled the time that his journalism compelled PBS to return millions of dollars to billionaire financier John Arnold for a program he funded about “the pension crisis.” Arnold has a passion for eliminating pensions for public employees.

He also pointed out a story about Bill Gates’ generous support for PBS programs like The Teaching Channel and for programs advocating for the Common Core.

Now, we understand that PBS and its affiliates need to raise money, but the public expects that whatever they feature will be fair and balanced, not an advertorial.

And we certainly don’t expect PBS to align its programming with the whims of rich individuals who seek to undermine and/or privatize and/or control public education.

I would certainly be shocked to see a program on PBS funded by billionaire Robert Mercer on why the nation does not need public television. Yet PBS has shockingly committed to airing a four-part series attacking public schools and praising the virtues of privatization.

When does the public interest get equal time?

Please call 703-739-5000 to register your protest.

Be sure to ask when they will give equal time to expose the corporate attack on our public schools.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Media, Privatization, Testing

Help Florida Parents of Third Graders Fight for Their Children

By dianeravitch
April 2, 2017 //
5

I just contributed $200 to this just cause.

If we crowd source our support, parents in Florida can fight the unjust law that prevents their children from advancing to fourth grade unless they take and pass the state test. Children who opt out will be retained. Children who received all A’s all year will flunk.

Support the parents fighting this stupid state mandate:

Dear Friends of Public Education,

As the Plaintiffs move towards the Florida Supreme Court, they must continue to pay their attorney. They have agreed to pay $7400.00 to progress this case. This is a small portion of the entire legal bill. With your generous donations, we can make it.

Here is a compelling video appeal from one of the parents: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_y8yDe0lOu0

At this time they have raised over $5000.00 of that $7400.00 and for that we thank you!

The families now have until April 4th to commit so please share the campaign and continue to support the fight to make sure that #180DaysCount.

There are 3 ways to donate.

1) gofundme.com/StopGr3Retention

2) Paypal link on https://www.facebook.com/TheOptOutFloridaNetwork/

3) To avoid GoFundMe fees, you may send a check directly to Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

The Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A.
200 South Washington Boulevard, Suite 7
Sarasota FL 34236

Note on your check: “Third Grade Florida Supreme Court” and please let us know you have sent it at TheOptOutFLNetwork@gmail.com

It has been encouraging that SO MANY teachers have donated.

If you can contribute a challenge match to help the families get over this first hurdle, we would be very grateful.

Categories Florida, Testing

A Call for the American Psychological Association and Other Professionals: Speak Up!

By dianeravitch
March 29, 2017 //
45

Many readers are asking the same question: Why isn’t the American Psychological Association speaking out about the misuse of standardized testing? Where are the professors who teach about testing? Why are they silent when children as young as 8 are subjected to hours of testing? Why are they silent when children in middle school are compelled to sit through tests that last longer than college admission tests? Why are they not defending their own standards for the appropriate use of tests? Is their silence a sign of complicity or indifference?

Testing expert Fred Smith wrote in a comment here:

“Not only should the American Psychological Association be petitioning against these exams–but APA should be joined by the National Council on Measurement in Education and the American Educational Research Association in condemning the NYS tests, their publisher and misusers.

“The three organizations jointly set forth and revise the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. They deal with fundamental matters of “validity, reliability, test development and administration, score comparability and supporting documentation.”

“It serves no one well when they don’t speak out against testing malpractice and abuse. I have yet to hear them comment on how statewide testing programs under NCLB, Common Core and ESSA have failed to meet their Standards. Unlike the American Statistical Association, which has stepped in to sharply and decisively repudiate the Value-Added Model for evaluating teachers, these three professional organizations have stayed above the fray.

“One area in which they should have critiqued the New York State Testing Program is the withholding of complete and timely technical data by which independent reviewers can judge the quality of the ELA and math tests. This opens into questions concerning the lack of transparency about the exams. But there is much to be questioned regarding test development and administration.

“Finally, where are the college and university professors who specialize in the field of tests and measurements? They must know that what’s going on is wrong. Why haven’t they joined forces to speak out against ill-conceived and damaging state testing programs?”

Categories Accountability, Childhood, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »